Should CEOs Always Be ‘On’? Debate: Work-Life Balance vs. Constant Availability
M&S CEO Stuart Machin sparked controversy at the Business Leader Summit by claiming perform-life balance is overrated, arguing CEOs must remain accessible to mitigate cyber risks. This stance clashes with growing evidence that executive burnout erodes judgment, forcing boards to reconsider succession planning and crisis management protocols.
Stuart Machin isn’t just speaking off the cuff. When the Marks & Spencer chief executive told the Business Leader Summit in London that he feels uncomfortable with senior leaders being completely “switched off,” he tapped into a raw nerve in the C-suite. His reasoning wasn’t about micromanagement for the sake of control; it was about survival. In an era where nation-state actors and sophisticated criminal groups target corporate infrastructure, the CEO is often the final failsafe.
Consider the data. GCHQ’s National Cyber Security Centre reported an average of four nationally significant cyber-attacks every week in their latest annual review. That figure represents a sharp escalation from 89 to 204 serious incidents annually. When a breach occurs, the clock starts ticking immediately. If the CEO is unreachable, the chain of command fractures. Machin’s argument rests on the fiscal reality that downtime during a crisis translates directly to reputation damage and shareholder value erosion.
The High Cost of the “Always-On” Premium
There is a tangible market premium on availability. Investors view an accessible CEO as a risk mitigation asset. However, this expectation creates a structural vulnerability within the organization. If the business cannot function without the CEO checking emails on a beach in the Maldives, the succession plan is effectively non-existent. This is where the argument shifts from personal preference to corporate governance failure.
Sharron Gunn, CEO of BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT, notes that although some leaders prefer checking in to avoid the stress of the unknown, this anxiety often stems from a lack of robust delegation. The Heathrow Airport power outage in March 2025 serves as a grim case study. When the CEO was unreachable during the operational meltdown, decisions unfolded without top-level oversight. While the team managed, the reputational scar remained. The market penalizes uncertainty more severely than it rewards constant connectivity.
Organizations facing this dilemma often turn to specialized crisis management and communications firms to build protocols that allow leadership to disconnect without exposing the firm to existential risk. These entities design command structures that function autonomously during emergencies, removing the psychological burden from the CEO.
Burnout as a Balance Sheet Liability
The counter-argument, championed by Jana Zdravecka, executive director at Infinox, frames constant connectivity as a silent killer of judgment. In financial terms, executive burnout is a liability that rarely appears on the balance sheet until it is too late. Fatigue degrades decision-making quality, leading to capital allocation errors that can drag down EBITDA margins for quarters.
“A boss being ‘always on’ might look impressive on the surface. But a leader builds something that can function without them being permanently plugged in.”
Zdravecka’s point cuts to the core of modern leadership theory. The “always-on” CEO is often a symptom of a fragile organizational culture. If a leader cannot step away to reset, they are likely bottlenecking innovation. High-performing teams require autonomy. When a CEO hovers, even digitally, it signals a lack of trust in the C-suite lieutenants. This dynamic stifles the development of future leaders, creating a talent gap that headhunters struggle to fill.
To combat this, forward-thinking boards are increasingly engaging executive coaching and leadership development firms. These partners work with C-suite executives to establish boundaries that protect cognitive bandwidth. The goal is to ensure that when the CEO does engage, their strategic input is sharp, not reactive. This shift from availability to efficacy is critical for long-term valuation.
The Verdict: Integration Over Balance
Machin’s comments, with their whiff of “work-life integration,” reflect a pragmatic adaptation to the 2026 threat landscape. Work-life balance as a rigid concept may indeed be becoming obsolete in favor of fluid integration. However, integration must not mean submersion. The ability to disconnect is not a luxury; it is a requirement for sustained high performance.
The market does not reward the CEO who answers emails at 3 AM. It rewards the CEO who builds a resilient machine that generates cash flow regardless of their location. Emergencies like cyber-attacks require swift action, but they should be handled by specialized response teams, not the CEO’s personal inbox. Relying on the CEO for operational triage is a failure of cybersecurity and IT risk management strategy.
the debate isn’t about whether CEOs should check their phones. It’s about whether the organization is robust enough to survive if they don’t. Those who can step away, reset, and return with clarity will outperform those who are permanently plugged in but mentally frayed. The trajectory is clear: resilience beats availability. Boards should prioritize building systems that allow their leaders to log off, ensuring that the company’s most valuable asset—their judgment—remains intact.